( democrats like to talk about being against big money but when they are offered with some themselves , they don't turn it down , this speech serious leaves Obama looking like a fool )

Obama's $400G Wall Street speech leaves liberal base stunned

By Christopher Wallace
·Published April 27, 2017
· Fox News

Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.

Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was careful in addressing the speech controversy, but said it was "troubling." (Associated Press)

“One of the things I talk about in the book is the influence of money. It’s a snake that slithers through Washington,” Warren said.

Calls to other prominent liberal elected officials, including Sen Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent who ran hard for the Democratic presidential nomination by championing the middle class and denouncing Wall Street, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were not immediately returned.

While Obama's longtime allies in Washington were taciturn, far-left groups that viewed him as their champion could not hide their bitterness.

"Even if he donates the money from this Wall Street firm to charity, his speech and remuneration reminds 'ordinary' working class people that both major political parties are in bed with Big Business," said David Michael Smith, of the Houston Socialist Movement. "In my view, our country needs a new kind of political party and social movement to represent the vast majority of the population, not the wealthy few."

The fee - equal to one year's presidential salary - was not the issue with critics so much as the idea a leader the Democratic base always considered beyond the reach of Wall Street taking it.

“Now Democrats are being put in the position of deciding whether their former president should take $400,000 from Wall Street for a speech," the left-leaning Washington Post wrote. "At the least, it risks suggesting the party's anti-Wall Street posture is in some cases just that — posturing.”

Some of Obama's supporters saw nothing wrong with the former president's pay day.

"He served us faithfully and well for 8 years as President - he doesn't work for us anymore. More power to him," one supporter wrote on Twitter.

Obama spokesman Ed Schulz insisted the former president remains true to his progressive values, and said taking money from Wall Street is not the same as being bought by Wall Street.

“With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, I'd just point out that in 2008, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in history — and still went on to successfully pass and implement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since FDR,” Schulz said.

Still, the development seemed a far cry from sentiments Obama expressed in his 2006 memoir, “The Audacity of Hope.”

“The path of least resistance - of fund-raisers organized by the special interests, the corporate PACs, and the top lobbying shops - starts to look awfully tempting, and if the opinions of these insiders don’t quite jibe with those you once held, you learn to rationalize the changes as a matter of realism, of compromise, of learning the ropes,” then-Sen. Obama wrote. “The problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland, become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought.”

Obama will have an opportunity to reconcile his evolving position on money and politics in his next memoir, for which he has already signed a $60 million deal

Barack Obama, the former president, who has been criticized for taking in $400,000 for a Wall Street-sponsored speech, has reportedly pulled in the exact same amount for another speech in New York.

The former president appeared at the A&E Networks advertising upfront at The Pierre Hotel in New York City where he was interviewed by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin for more than 90 minutes in front of the cable network’s advertisers, The New York Post reported.

Earlier this week, the 44th president came under strong scrutiny after it was learned that he agreed to speak at a health care event in September sponsored by Wall Street Bank Cantor Fitzgerald, a speech that would earn him $400,000.

Surprisingly, Democratic Party leaders have come out to the media to harshly criticized Obama.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show Thursday morning but held back from criticizing the president directly.

Obama spokesman Ed Schulz insisted the former president remains true to his progressive values, and said taking money from Wall Street is not the same as being bought by Wall Street.

“With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, I'd just point out that in 2008, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in history — and still went on to successfully pass and implement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since FDR,” Schulz said.

Obama will have an opportunity to reconcile his evolving position on money and politics in his next memoir, for which he has already signed a $60 million deal

Should we be scandalized by reports that former President Barack Obama will be paid $400,000 to deliver a speech at a healthcare conference sponsored by Cantor Fitzgerald, a Wall Street investment bank?

I don’t think so, at least not for most of the reasons offered by the prosecution.

One count in the “indictment” is that accepting such a generous speaking fee looks like influence-peddling. But as an ex-president, Obama has limited influence to peddle. True, as Jason Willick of The American Interest noted, he continues to be a de facto leader in the Democratic Party who can “make key introductions, put things on the agenda.”

But after eight years in the White House, Obama probably already knows a lot of the people he would run into on the Wall Street speaking circuit. Even if that weren’t the case, the more speeches he gives, the larger the number of people he theoretically would be expected to introduce to Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. He’d be spread pretty thin even if he did want to do the bidding of his paymasters or audience members.

In the Washington Post, Aaron Blake moves beyond the influence-peddling idea to offer “4 Reasons Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street Speech Is a Bad Idea.” No. 1 is that “it continues to set a dubious precedent” of ex-presidents cashing in on their previous service. This

Blake says, puts future presidents on notice “that such payments are on the table, and it risks coloring their decisions with regard to Wall Street and special interests.”

Hmm. Even if Obama declared a vow of silence, there would still be recent examples of presidents who accepted fat speaking fees after they left office — Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. They could serve equally well as reminders to an ethically challenged president that ex-presidents can make money giving speeches.

Blake’s second argument is that Obama’s fat speaking fee violates the spirit — it obviously doesn’t violate the letter — of laws prohibiting ex-government employees from lobbying their former colleagues. The underlying principle, he says, is deterring government employees from using their positions to guarantee a “future payday” in the private sector. This sounds a lot like Blake’s first argument; it still doesn’t fit Obama.

Blake’s third argument is that “Democrats are trying to be the anti-Wall Street party” and Obama’s speaking fee complicates that rebranding. Having won the presidency for the Democrats twice, I’m not sure Obama owes the party anything.

Blake’s closing argument is headlined: “Obama Himself Discussed the Corrupting Influence of Such Arrangements in His Book.” Blake notes that in his 2006 book “The Audacity of Hope” Obama described how hanging out with “people of means” made him “more like the wealthy donors I met.” But surely the time to worry about Obama being compromised by contact with the hyper-affluent 1% was when he was president

You can find these arguments unconvincing – and obviously I do – and still understand why so many people are dismayed by Obama’s acceptance of this humongous speaking fee. Relative to other positions of power in this society, the presidency isn’t a well-paid position. That’s why it’s called “public service.” Yet, as noted above, recent former presidents have been eager to accept large sums of money to speak about that service to select audiences.

Now Obama, the epitome of good taste when he was president, has signaled that he too is ready to begin cashing in. That may not be corrupt or a threat to honest government, but it strikes us as tacky – tackier somehow than accepting a lucrative contract to write a book, though that also amounts to capitalizing on public service. But our revulsion isn’t moral; it’s aesthetic.

Warren is the most prominent progressive to publicly question Obama's decision
An Obama spokesperson dismissed the idea that the large speaking fee compromises his convictions

(CNN) — Sen. Elizabeth Warren is "troubled" to hear that President Barack Obama will receive $400,000 to speak at a Wall Street health conference in September.

"I was troubled by that," the Massachusetts Democrat said Thursday on SiriusXM's "Alter Family Politics." "One of the things I talk about in the book ("This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America's Middle Class") is the influence of money. I describe it as a snake that slithers through Washington and that it shows up in so many different ways here in Washington."

Warren, an icon of the left and influential Democratic leader in the Trump era, is the most prominent progressive to publicly question Obama's decision, particularly after Hillary Clinton alienated many liberals during the 2016 election over her coziness with Wall Street.

Despite the influence of the wealthy in politics, however, Warren said she is confident that the numbers are in favor of the American people.

"There's more of us than there is of them," Warren added. "And we've got to use our voices and our votes and fight back."

In the opening weeks of Obama's administration, the former president called bank CEOs "fat cats" amid widespread criticism about the golden parachutes given to execs whose companies contributed to the Great Recession.

But an Obama spokesperson dismissed the idea that the large speaking fee compromises the former president's convictions.

"As we announced months ago, President Obama will deliver speeches from time to time," Eric Schultz, a senior adviser to Obama, said Wednesday in a statement. "Some of those speeches will be paid, some will be unpaid, and regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values, his vision, and his record."

"With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, I'd just point out that in 2008, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in history -- and still went on to successfully pass and implement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since FDR," he added.

Schultz added that Obama will continue to focus most of his post-presidency on writing a book, giving speeches and "training and elevating a new generation of political leaders in America."

What a charade! Tacky but not illegal? Are you kidding me? Elizabeth Warren is 'disturbed'? Surely anyone would know that there's more to this than merely a fee for a speech from a notable retired politician.

It's like the book deals that Hillary and Bill both signed, znd possibly other high politicians as well ... $millions for books that hardly sell, at least in some cases. More than established authors get.

It all seems like conduits for cash payments that would be bribes if they were still in office.

Of course he is going to cash in, Why not? Ok, his prior mandates suggest he is above that but of course he needs to pay the bills. If someone is stupid enough to pay the fee (and they are) then he would be equally or more stupid to say no.

Nixon was paid $600,000 for his interviews. Whats that in todays dollar?

Ronald Reagan was paid $2M for speeches in Japan after leaving office and at a time when Japan and the US were in an economic battle.

George HW Bush gets/got very large sums for being with the Carlyle Group.

The point is...why not? Its easy money and unless someone can link the favourtism back to in office shenanigans then its moot.

The Presidents i9n the recent past are much younger than the Orange guy. Bush Jr, Clinton, Obama are all relatively young men. $186,000 a year pension (plus security 24-7, driver, travel budget,mailing privileges and so on) doesnt go very far !

Hell, Id love a pension like that!

But anyway....yawn....for all of them.

We do know one thing, theres no evidence any of them built up their business' while in office.

Our favourite apologist responds ... is there bit of wretched excess amongst public service people that he won't justify?

How can a speech be worth $400,000? There are economic ways of measuring value based upon things like replacement value, or current market values, or the income it earns. But this is not a house, that has a concrete replacement value; nor is it a piece of fine art whose price is determined at auction. No, this is something else. Its value must be related to the income it produces -- or its a payoff.

I don't know about Reagan, but certainly the Nixon interview was something different because it had the promise of getting new information about Watergate and what was behind it. You could get a lot of eyeballs watching your program for that. The fact that Bush -- a hugely unpopular president when he retired -- got almost half as much doesn't make it OK. This is the kind of thing Bill and Hilary did, a way of collecting for the influence they were so aggressively peddling. What else makes sense?

Whine about $400,000 but presented with facts that George Bush has made $30,000,000 from speaking fees goes unmentioned.

And Bill and Hillary...wahhh....But Nixons is justified.

Reagan would have made as much maybe more but he was seriously ill before he left office so not much moeny could be made. Good on him for getting what he can, as do ALL of them but our resident blind boy cant see that.

Well well well....thats awfully rich coming from you. Youve dodged questions I posed to your posts for eons now.

But, I dont want to be a hypocrite, so here ya go.

Why is it OK? Because that is what they all do. People want to hear from them, they have insight that few others have.

Its legal. I dont find it morally repugnant in any way, although there is an element of wtf since Obama was always the anything but Wall St (in public at least) type of guy. But we know Wall St is where they all come from and go back to. Trumps drain the swamp is the same way.
Drain the swamp of low level staffers but keep the big wigs and hire more billion-million-aires.

As a young (for Pres) guy, both Obama and Bush have many many years left to live. May as well pad the account to keep the lifestyle .

Is Mr Stephen Harper and his Harper and Associates doing unpaid work for the general good? Or is he being paid rather well for his expertise? Is that wrong ? Of course not. He too is a relatively young.

You are just so fulla shit. You make this as unpleasant as possible, don't you?

I don't think anyone would complain if someone as notable as Obama was generously paid for real speeches, but is that the case?

We saw, thanks to Wikileaks, the transcripts of Hillary's so-called speech to Goldman Sachs, and you couldn't even call it a speech. It was more that she let her hair down with a bunch of hustlers, telling them what she really thinks. She was careful to distinguish between her public and her private opinions because her public statements are what she needs to say at the moment to avoid responsiblity.

There is, after all, the little thing of the Clinton Foundation, and influence peddling. It's not an exotic or partisan opinion that the Clinton Foundation was a crooked outfit,and that their speaking fees were one of the ways that they were paid off.

But it isn't the speeches themselves, or the payment -- it's the amount of the payment that causes people to hold their noses. $40,000 is imaginable ... but $400,000?

It isn't just me, or just Republicans that are shaking their heads, after all -- it's that part of the Democratic Party that is hoping for renewal. The fact that he's at the trough changes the way people see him. Not my fault. Just sayin' ...

And what real question of yours have I dodged? There are times when I let you have the last word because I don't see the point. Your way of making an argument is so frivolous and stupid -- at least at times -- and so much of it is based on nothing more than your assertions -- that I just let it go. A good recent example is your claim that the Americans would get hammered if they press on with the softwood lumber issue. What was that based on, I wonder?

I don't imagine you are actually expecting to change my mind. You just want to discredit. OK, that's part of the game, I suppose, but you shouldn't expect me to help you.

You are just so fulla shit. You make this as unpleasant as possible, don't you?

Well, I am not the one who constantly makes it personal so...

Quote:

I don't think anyone would complain if someone as notable as Obama was generously paid for real speeches, but is that the case?

Sure it is!
He was task4ed with speaking and he did. Heres the cheque and thanks for coming.

Quote:

But it isn't the speeches themselves, or the payment -- it's the amount of the payment that causes people to hold their noses. $40,000 is imaginable ... but $400,000?

Good for him! Nice gig if you can get it.

Good for George and his $30million! Funny....Reps arent saying much there.

Wonder why?

Quote:

-- it's that part of the Democratic Party that is hoping for renewal. The fact that he's at the trough changes the way people see him. Not my fault. Just sayin' ...

Thats their problem. Not a one of them would be any different in Obamas shoes.

Show me the money .
[quote]
And what real question of yours have I dodged? LOL...too funny.

Quote:

There are times when I let you have the last word because I don't see the point. Your way of making an argument is so frivolous and stupid -- at least at times -- and so much of it is based on nothing more than your assertions -- that I just let it go. A good recent example is your claim that the Americans would get hammered if they press on with the softwood lumber issue.

Yea yea....sure.

Quote:

What was that based on, I wonder?

All the press reports that were confirming that. All the politicians who were agreeing...Republicans to boot.

Quote:

I don't imagine you are actually expecting to change my mind. You just want to discredit. OK, that's part of the game, I suppose, but you shouldn't expect me to help you.

Correct.

I do show you that your fantasies are not well thought out, that your 'feels' are just short of worthless, ya know, that housing post where you admittedly didnt really look around but are sure no new apartments are going up, ....that kind of thing.

You do give me a chuckle with that one. You are entirely cynical and without any sense of proportion, so you don't recognize wretched excess when you see it. Who is really paying Obama, and for what? That would clarify a lot.

Wouldn't this be a time for Obama to start picking up on some of those political credits he created for himself over the last eight years. You expect the rewards to be in line with the kind of 'cut' each gang member would get when they count out the loot.

It isn't just me that thinks it's revealing or debunking. Secondly, I didn't post this article. It's not a hill I want to die on. I think you live in a dream world if you think a couple of hours is worth that kind of money. There has to be more to it. I can't prove that. But if anyone thinks your point of view is 'appropriate', that's fine. It just makes one wonder just where the limits are, in your mind.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum